The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefitted that segment of the U.S. population. Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag

DURING OBAMA’S FIRST TERM 2/3s OF ALL JOBS WENT TO IMMIGRANTS,
BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. FEDERAL WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT of LAWS PROHIBITING THE
EMPLOYMENT of ILLEGALS PLUMMETED 70%... AND OBAMA - HOLDER SABOTAGED E-VERIFY
EVERYWHERE THEY COULD TO EASE MORE LA RAZA INTO OUR JOBS!

*

JOBS: 97% ARE PART TIME… 100% PAY MISERABLE AND OF THOSE 100% GO
TO OBAMA’S LA RAZA PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS!

CEO pay is higher than ever, as is
the chasm separating the rich and super-rich from everyone else. The incomes of
the top 1 percent grew more than 11 percent between 2009 and 2011—the first two
years of the Obama “recovery”—while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent
actually shrank.

Meanwhile, Obama is pressing
forward with his proposal, outlined in his budget for the next fiscal year, to
slash $400 billion from Medicare and $130 billion from Social Security… AS WELL
AS WIDER OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, NO LEGAL NEED APPLY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED

…it will probably
make you want to puke, but Barack Obama hands over millions to the MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, which in fact operates out of the white house under
CECILIA MUNOZ. BOTH of Obama’s SEC. of (illegal) LABOR are LA RAZA SUPREMACIST!
HIS ONLY NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A LA RAZA PARTY
MEMBER!

"This
country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a
common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to
Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California
through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via
President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

“Through love of
having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA
FASCIST PARTY

THE FASTEST GROWING PARTY IN AMERICA IS THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! FINANCED BY MEXICO, YOUR TAX DOLLARS, AND MOST OF THE
FORTUNE 500!

BY HEATHER Mac DONALD

BASIC LA RAZA PROPAGANDA LIES:

Lie #1: Legals that think our nation’s laws and sovereignty
should be obeyed are racist. There’s nothing more racist than a Mexican! When
poor from Central America cross the border into Mexico they are apprehended and
put in prison. When an employer in Mexico hires an illegal, he is fined and
jailed.

*

Lie #2: Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won't do.

Truth: Americans are willing to do most jobs at a fair wage,
but they won't do those jobs at "slave wages" or minimum wage. Thus,
American workers are constantly replaced by illegal aliens willing to work for
half or a third of what American workers once received. These jobs that once
afforded a middle class life style now only offer illegal alien workers poverty
level wages, resulting in the shrinkage of the "American Middle
Class" and the enormous growth of an ever‑increasing
"underclass" dependent on government entitlements.

*

Lie #3: Illegal aliens contribute more to the economy and
tax base than they take.

Truth: A large portion of illegal aliens work for cash
"under the table" paying no taxes. The great majority of illegals
make $6‑$8 per hour, ($12,480 ‑ $16,640 per year). At such income levels, not
only is there no tax due, but they also qualify for the "earned income tax
credit". In California, public education alone costs over $7,500 per
pupil. Multiply that times 2‑4 children, add the costs of free school breakfast
and lunch, free medical care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and other
entitlement "give‑aways". Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates
illegal immigration costs the U.S. 70 billion dollars per year and Californians
$1,300 per household annually in additional taxes. The Center for Immigration
Studies estimate that the average Mexican illegal alien will use $55,200 more
in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.

*

Lie #4: Without illegal alien farm labor, a head of lettuce
would cost $3.00.

Truth: It already costs $3.00. You just make a $1.00 down
payment at the grocery store. The government finances the other two dollars
until tax time, when the additional $2.00 balance is extracted from your wallet
in the form of higher taxes. The Agriculture industry gets cheap labor and higher
profits, while shifting all the social costs of illegal immigrant labor to the
American tax payer.

*

Lie #5: Most illegal aliens come here only to seek work and
are law‑abiding "citizens".

Truth: In Los Angeles, as of January, 2004, 95 percent of
all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target
illegal aliens. Up to two‑thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are
for illegal aliens. A confidential California Department of Justice study
reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000‑strong 18th Street Gang in
southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually
much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant
force in California prisons, on complex drug‑distribution schemes, extortion,
and drive‑by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in
L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by
recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America
and Mexico.

The National Council of La Raza
(NCLR) is not only one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful militant
organizations in the country, it is also notoriously racist and subversive.
The group's name, "La Raza," means "The Race," by which
they are referring to ethnic Mexicans, or more broadly to "hispanics"
or "latinos." And it is quite clear from their decades of vitriolic
rhetoric — both spoken and written — that the La Raza activists are trying to
engender not only race consciousness amongst hispanic U.S. citizens and Mexican
migrants, but also racial militancy and animosity toward "Gringo
America."

The NCLR grew out of the La
Raza Unida (The Race United) Party and the Southwest Council of La Raza in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. The key leaders were Marxist-Leninist followers of
Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra.

The radical student group MEChA
(Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), with which NCLR has been closely
allied for several decades, is even more explicitly and militantly, having
adopted the slogan, "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada," which
translated means: "For the Race, Everything; Outside the Race,
Nothing."

MEChA's founding documents and
literature are replete with appeals to "La Raza de Bronce" (The
Bronze Race) and condemnation of the "brutal gringo." MEChA, as its
name suggests, is also a leading promoter of the radical "reconquista"
(reconquest) movement, a plan of to take over the states of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — a region they refer to as
"Aztlan" — which they claim was stolen from the "Aztecan"
peoples. NCLR provides major financial support to MEChA and many of NCLR's
leaders were MEChA leaders in their
college days.

NCLR: Agents for the Government of
Mexico?

Especially troubling is NCLR's
leading role in the Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (Foundation for
Mexican-American Solidarity, FSMA), an organization founded and funded by the
government of Mexico and directed by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Ministry of Public Education. Both of these ministries have been engaged in
efforts aimed at demanding full political rights for illegal aliens in the U.S.
and indoctrinating America's Hispanic population in radical, racist La Raza
ideology.

LaRaza Calls For Boycott Against
Free Speech

No surprise here. Pulling the race/hate card again and
using political correctness La Raza goes after cable shows reporting on illegal
immigration.

"Murguía said she recognized that ultimately the power to change the
debate lies with the Hispanic community itself. “Latinos buy products from the
advertisers supporting these programs,” she said. “Latinos vote in primaries
and in the general election. We have a significant role to play picking winners
and losers in both arenas. We need to make it clear to those who embrace hate
that they do so at their own economic and political peril.”

...remember these are the very people that Obama is handing amnesty or continued non-enforcement to along with OBAMACARE, our jobs and LA RAZA DREAM ACTS!Mexicans are the most violent and racist cultures in the hemisphere.

“Marcos Aguilar’s school seems to be
brainwashing school children with Mexican separatist, anti-American, Marxist
propaganda, and getting American taxpayers to pay for it,” said Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton.

MEXICAN FASCISM AND HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN AMERICAN BORDERS – THE FASTEST GROWIN POLITICAL PARTY IN
AMERICA is LA RAZA “THE (mexican) RACE”

Judicial
Watch Exposes Mexican Separatist School – LA RAZA “THE RACE”, M.E.Ch.A. and the
AZTLAN PLAN of occupation of America whereby Americans are forced to pay for
their own occuapation, looting and Mexican welfare state

Academia is funded by the Mexican reconquista organization “National Council of La
Raza.” Moreover, Aguilar
previously served as a leader of M.E.Ch.A., a radical student-run Chicano
organization, while attending UCLA. According to M.E.Ch.A.’s official statement
of principles, “Aztlan (the American southwest) belongs to indigenous people,
who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture. We are a union of free
pueblos forming a bronze Nation.”

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates
and prosecutes corruption, today announced the release of a special report,
Academia Semillas del Pueblo (Seeds of the People Academy): Training the Next Generation of Mexican Revolutionaries
with American Tax Dollars.Judicial
Watch’s report includes excerpts of new documents obtained by Judicial Watch
through the California Public Records Act that highlight the school’s radical
agenda. According to the report’s introduction: “Academia
Semillas del Pueblo is not much more than a training ground for the Mexican
reconquista movement, which seeks to conquer the American Southwest – by force
or by ballot box – and return it to Mexico.” Among the highlights of Judicial Watch’s special
report: • Academia is led by Mexican revolutionary radical Marcos Aguilar, who
recently told an interviewer with UCLA’s Teaching to change L.A.: “We don’t
necessarily want to go to White schools, the White way, the American way, the
neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own
destruction.”Academia offers an 8th
grade United States history and geography class entitled, “A People’s history
of Expansion and Conflict – A thematic survey of American politics, society,
culture and political economy; Emphasis throughout on the nations the U.S.
usurped, invaded and dominated; Connections between historical rise of
capitalism and imperialism with modern political economy and global social
relations.”Academia
is funded by the Mexican reconquista organization “National Council of La
Raza.”Moreover, Aguilar
previously served as a leader of M.E.Ch.A., a radical student-run Chicano
organization, while attending UCLA. According to M.E.Ch.A.’s official statement
of principles, “Aztlan (the American southwest) belongs to indigenous people,
who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture¼We are a union of free
pueblos forming a bronze Nation.” According to Academia’s original charter
application, the school targets “communities [that] are highly self-identified
as Latino.” English instruction for Academia’s students does not begin until
the fourth grade. “Marcos Aguilar’s
school seems to be brainwashing school children with Mexican separatist,
anti-American, Marxist propaganda, and getting American taxpayers to pay for
it,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How could the Los Angeles Unified
School District agree to fund this sham of a school with tax dollars?”

"This
country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a
common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to
Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California
through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via
President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

“Through love of
having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA
FASCIST PARTY

*

Lou Dobbs

Tonight Tuesday July 8, 2008

Sens. McCain and Obama are fiercely courting the Latino
vote. Last month they spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials; today it’s the League of United Latin American Citizens’
national convention; and this weekend they’re set to address the National
Council of La Raza, one of the most radical socio-ethnocentric interest groups
in the country.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to
the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."--- Excelsior,
the national newspaper of Mexico

THE FASTEST GROWING PARTY IN AMERICA IS THE MEXICAN
FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! FINANCED BY MEXICO, YOUR TAX DOLLARS, AND MOST OF THE
FORTUNE 500!

*

BY HEATHER Mac DONALD

BASIC LA RAZA PROPAGANDA LIES:

Lie #1: Legals that think our nation’s laws and sovereignty
should be obeyed are racist. There’s nothing more racist than a Mexican! When
poor from Central America cross the border into Mexico they are apprehended and
put in prison. When an employer in Mexico hires an illegal, he is fined and
jailed.

*

Lie #2: Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won't do.

Truth: Americans are willing to do most jobs at a fair wage,
but they won't do those jobs at "slave wages" or minimum wage. Thus,
American workers are constantly replaced by illegal aliens willing to work for
half or a third of what American workers once received. These jobs that once
afforded a middle class life style now only offer illegal alien workers poverty
level wages, resulting in the shrinkage of the "American Middle
Class" and the enormous growth of an ever‑increasing
"underclass" dependent on government entitlements.

*

Lie #3: Illegal aliens contribute more to the economy and
tax base than they take.

Truth: A large portion of illegal aliens work for cash
"under the table" paying no taxes. The great majority of illegals
make $6‑$8 per hour, ($12,480 ‑ $16,640 per year). At such income levels, not
only is there no tax due, but they also qualify for the "earned income tax
credit". In California, public education alone costs over $7,500 per
pupil. Multiply that times 2‑4 children, add the costs of free school breakfast
and lunch, free medical care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and other
entitlement "give‑aways". Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates
illegal immigration costs the U.S. 70 billion dollars per year and Californians
$1,300 per household annually in additional taxes. The Center for Immigration
Studies estimate that the average Mexican illegal alien will use $55,200 more
in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.

*

Lie #4: Without illegal alien farm labor, a head of lettuce
would cost $3.00.

Truth: It already costs $3.00. You just make a $1.00 down
payment at the grocery store. The government finances the other two dollars
until tax time, when the additional $2.00 balance is extracted from your wallet
in the form of higher taxes. The Agriculture industry gets cheap labor and higher
profits, while shifting all the social costs of illegal immigrant labor to the
American tax payer.

*

Lie #5: Most illegal aliens come here only to seek work and
are law‑abiding "citizens".

Truth: In Los Angeles, as of January, 2004, 95 percent of
all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target
illegal aliens. Up to two‑thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are
for illegal aliens. A confidential California Department of Justice study
reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000‑strong 18th Street Gang in
southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually
much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant
force in California prisons, on complex drug‑distribution schemes, extortion,
and drive‑by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in
L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by
recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America
and Mexico.

The National Council of La Raza
(NCLR) is not only one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful militant
organizations in the country, it is also notoriously racist and subversive.
The group's name, "La Raza," means "The Race," by which
they are referring to ethnic Mexicans, or more broadly to "hispanics"
or "latinos." And it is quite clear from their decades of vitriolic
rhetoric — both spoken and written — that the La Raza activists are trying to
engender not only race consciousness amongst hispanic U.S. citizens and Mexican
migrants, but also racial militancy and animosity toward "Gringo
America."

The NCLR grew out of the La
Raza Unida (The Race United) Party and the Southwest Council of La Raza in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. The key leaders were Marxist-Leninist followers of
Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra.

The radical student group MEChA
(Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), with which NCLR has been closely
allied for several decades, is even more explicitly and militantly, having
adopted the slogan, "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada," which
translated means: "For the Race, Everything; Outside the Race,
Nothing."

MEChA's founding documents and
literature are replete with appeals to "La Raza de Bronce" (The
Bronze Race) and condemnation of the "brutal gringo." MEChA, as its
name suggests, is also a leading promoter of the radical "reconquista"
(reconquest) movement, a plan of to take over the states of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — a region they refer to as
"Aztlan" — which they claim was stolen from the "Aztecan"
peoples. NCLR provides major financial support to MEChA and many of NCLR's
leaders were MEChA leaders in their
college days.

NCLR: Agents for the Government of
Mexico?

Especially troubling is NCLR's
leading role in the Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (Foundation for
Mexican-American Solidarity, FSMA), an organization founded and funded by the
government of Mexico and directed by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Ministry of Public Education. Both of these ministries have been engaged in
efforts aimed at demanding full political rights for illegal aliens in the U.S.
and indoctrinating America's Hispanic population in radical, racist La Raza
ideology.

*

LaRaza Calls For Boycott Against
Free Speech

No surprise here. Pulling the race/hate card again and
using political correctness La Raza goes after cable shows reporting on illegal
immigration.

"Murguía said she recognized that ultimately the power to change the
debate lies with the Hispanic community itself. “Latinos buy products from the
advertisers supporting these programs,” she said. “Latinos vote in primaries
and in the general election. We have a significant role to play picking winners
and losers in both arenas. We need to make it clear to those who embrace hate
that they do so at their own economic and political peril.”

THE MEXICAN
DRUG CARTELS OPERATE IN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSE
OBAMA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS AGENDA.

“Oropeza,
48, was arrested May 31, 2007, by police in Saraland, Ala., who stopped him on
a traffic violation. Checking his record, they learned of the investigation in
Texas.

They
searched the van and discovered 185 pounds of cocaine hidden under a false
floor. That allowed federal agents to freeze Oropeza's bank accounts and search
his marble-floored home in Brownsville, Robinette says.”

The
government, like the banks, had a vested interest in shutting down the
investigation, as the results of any genuine inquiry would have exposed
negligence and collusion on the part of the regulators as well as gross
violations of law by the banks that would have made it more difficult for the
Obama administration to avoid criminal prosecutions.

The Times also reported that such “independent
investigators” played a key role in the HSBC money laundering scandal, helping
cover up the extent of the British-based bank’s money laundering operation for
Mexican drug cartels.

The danger, as Washington
Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing
poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor…
AMNESTY IS ONLY ABOUT KEEPING WAGES FOR LEGALS DEPRESSED!

…no
filthy politician in American history has taken more loot from looting
banksters than the WALKING CON JOB BARACK OBAMA… and not one bankster has gone
to prison! HOW’D THAT HAPPEN?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?

“Records
show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial
industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase
($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

OBAMA HAS PROFESSED THAT JP MORGAN IS HIS PAYMASTERS AND GOOD BANKSTER!''

For much of Obama’s tenure, Jamie Dimon was known as the White House’s “favorite banker.” According to White House logs, Dimon visited the White House at least 18 times, often to talk to his former subordinate at JPMorgan, William Daley, who had been named White House chief of staff by Obama after the Democratic rout in the 2010 elections.

OBAMA PROMISED HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS NO PRISON TIME AND NO REAL REGULATION. DID HE DELIVER?

The JPMorgan scandal also throws into relief the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and criminality uncovered by two federal investigations last year, those responsible have been shielded from prosecution.

BANK
PROFITS SOARING!

YES, UNDER THE BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENT OBAMA, LIFE IS GOOD
FOR HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS. THEIR PROFITS and CRIMES ARE SOARING AND SO
ARE FORECLOSURES.

“Records show
that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial
industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase
($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

*

A CASE OF INCEST! OBAMA PARTNERS WITH WALL STREET’S BIGGEST
CRIMINAL BANKSTERS, MOST OF WHOM NOW WORK IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

CRONY CAPITALISM: OBAMA PROTECTS JP MORGAN, THE BIGGEST
BANKSTER CRIMINALS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, AND ONE OF OBAMA’S BIGGEST BANKSTER
DONORS!

Nearly five years after the greatest financial crash since
the Great Depression, triggered by rampant illegality and fraud on the part of
the major banks, not a single major institution or leading bank executive has
been indicted, let alone tried, convicted and jailed.

The criminal charges are part of an attempt by the Obama
administration to create the appearance that it is cracking down on Wall Street
criminality, while it continues to shield top executives and allow banking
fraud and criminality to continue unabated.

“Records show
that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial
industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase
($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

THE
BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENT PROMISED HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS NO real
REGULATION, NO PRISON TIME, AND UNLIMITED PILLAGING OF THE NATION’S ECONOMY!

DESPITE
THE DEVASTATION THESE BANKSTERS HAVE CAUSED AMERICANS, THEIR PROFITS SOARED
GREATER DURING OBAMA’S FIRST TWO YEARS, THAN ALL EIGHT UNDER BUSH. SO HAVE
FORECLOSURES!

Records show that
four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry
giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).

“Barack Obama's favorite
banker faces losses of $2 billion and
possibly more -- all because of the complex, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't trading
in exotic financial instruments that he has so ardently lobbied Congress not to
regulate.”

Is JPMorgan's Loss a Canary in a Coal Mine?

Posted: 05/16/2012 4:49 pm

That sound of
shattered glass you've been hearing is the iconic portrait of Jamie Dimon
splintering as it hits the floor of JPMorgan Chase. As the Good Book says,
"Pride goeth before a fall," and the sleek, silver-haired,
too-smart-for-his-own-good CEO of America's largest bank has been turning every
television show within reach into a confessional booth. Barack Obama's favorite
banker faces losses of $2 billion and
possibly more -- all because of the complex, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't
trading in exotic financial instruments that he has so ardently lobbied
Congress not to regulate.

Once again, doing
God's work -- that is, betting huge sums of money with depositor funds knowing
that you are too big to fail and can count on taxpayers riding to your rescue
if your avarice threatens to take the country down -- has lost some of its
luster. The jewels in Dimon's crown sparkle with a little less grandiosity than
a few days ago, when he ridiculed Paul Volcker's ideas for keeping Wall Street
honest as "infantile."

To find out more
about what this all means, I turned to Simon Johnson, once chief economist of
the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT's Sloan School of
Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International
Economics. He and his colleague James Kwak founded the now-indispensable
website baselinescenario.com. They co-authored the bestselling book
13
Bankers and a most recent
book, White
House Burning, an account every
citizen should read to understand how the national deficit affects our future.

Bill Moyers: If Chase began to collapse because of
risky betting, would the government be forced to step in again?

Simon Johnson: Absolutely, Bill. JPMorgan Chase is
too big to fail. Hopefully in the future we can move away from this system, but
right now it is too big. It's about a $2.5 trillion dollar bank in terms of
total assets. That's roughly 20 percent of the U.S. economy, comparing their
assets to our GDP. That's huge. If that bank were to collapse -- I'm not saying
it will -- but if it were to collapse, it would be a shock to the economy
bigger than that of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and as a result, they
would be protected by the Federal Reserve. They are exactly what's known as too
big to fail.

Moyers: I was just looking at an interview I did with you in February of 2009,
soon after the collapse of 2008 and you said, and I'm quoting, "The signs
that I see... the body language, the words, the op-eds, the testimony, the way
these bankers are treated by certain congressional committees, it makes me feel
very worried. I have a feeling in my stomach that is what I had in other
countries, much poorer countries, countries that were headed into really
difficult economic situations. When there's a small group of people who got you
into a disaster and who are still powerful, you know you need to come in and
break that power and you can't. You're stuck." How do you feel about that
insight now?

Johnson: I'm still nervous, and I think that
the losses that JPMorgan reported -- that CEO Jamie Dimon reported -- and the
way in which they're presented, the fact that they're surprised by it and the
fact that they didn't know they were taking these kinds of risks, the fact that
they lost so much money in a relatively benign moment compared to what we've
seen in the past and what we're likely to see in the future -- all of this
suggests that we are absolutely on the path towards another financial crisis of
the same order of magnitude as the last one.

Moyers: Should Jamie Dimon resign? I ask that
because as you know and as we've discussed, Chase and other huge banks have
been using their enormous wealth for years to, in effect, buy off our
politicians and regulators. Chase just had to pay up almost three quarters of a billion
dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone, that of
bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. It's also paid out
billions of dollars to settle other cases of perjury, forgery, fraud and sale
of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place
while Mr. Dimon was the CEO. Should he resign?

Johnson: I think, Bill, there should be an
independent investigation into how JPMorgan operates both with regard to these
losses and with regard to all of the problems that you just identified. This
investigation should be conducted separate from the board of directors.
Remember that the shareholders and the board of directors absolutely have an
incentive to keep JPMorgan Chase as a too-big-to-fail bank. But because it is
that kind of bank, its downside risk is taken by the Federal Reserve, by the
taxpayer, by the broader economy and all citizens. We need to have an
independent, detailed, specific investigation to establish who knew what when
and what kind of wrongdoing management was engaged in. On the basis of that,
we'll see what we'll see and who should have to resign.

Moyers: Dimon is also on the board of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, as everyone knows is supposed to
regulate JPMorgan. What in the world are bankers doing on the Fed board,
regulating themselves?

Johnson: This is a terrible situation, Bill. It
goes back to the origins, the political compromise at the very beginning of the
Federal Reserve system about a hundred years ago. The bankers were very
powerful back then, also, and they got a Federal Reserve system in which they
had a lot of representation. Some of that has eroded over time because of
previous abuses, but you're absolutely right, the prominent bankers, including
most notably, Jamie Dimon, are members of the board of the New York Federal
Reserve, a key element in the Federal Reserve system. And he should, under
these circumstances, absolutely step down from that role. It's completely inappropriate
to have such a big bank represented in this fashion. The New York Fed claims
there's no impropriety, there's no wrong doing and he doesn't involve himself
in supervision and so on and so forth. Perhaps, but why does Mr. Dimon, a very
busy man, take time out of his day to be on the board of the New York fed? He
is getting something from this. It's a trade, just like everything else on Wall
Street.

Moyers: He dismissed criticism of his dual
role yesterday by downplaying the role of the Fed board. He said it's more like an "advisory group
than anything else." I had to check my hearing aid to see if I'd heard
that correctly.

Johnson: Well, I think he is advising them on
lots of things. He also, of course, meets with some regularity with top
Treasury officials, and some reports say that he meets with President Obama
with some regularity. The political access and connections of Mr. Dimon are
second to none. One of his senior executives was until recently chief of staff
in the White House, if you can believe that. I really think this has gone far
enough. Under these kinds of circumstances with this amount of loss of control
over risk management, what we need to have is Mr. Dimon step down from the New
York Federal Reserve Board.

Moyers: He told shareholders at their annual
meeting Tuesday -- they were meeting in Tampa, Florida -- that these were "self-inflicted mistakes"
that "should never have happened." Does that seem reasonable to you?

Johnson: Well, it's all very odd, Bill, and
I've talked to as many experts as I can find who are at all informed about what
JPMorgan was doing and how they were doing it and nobody really understands the
true picture. That's why we need an independent investigation to establish --
was this an isolated incident or, more likely, the breakdown of a system of
controlling and managing risks. Keep in mind that JPMorgan is widely regarded
to be the best in the business at risk management, as it is called on Wall
Street. And if they can't do this in a relatively benign moment when things are
not so very bad around the world, what is going to happen to them and to other
banks when something really dramatic happens, for example, in Europe in the
eurozone?

Moyers: Some of his supporters are claiming
that only the bank has lost on this and that there's absolutely no chance that
the loss could have threatened the stability of the banking system as happened
in 2008. What do you say again to that?

Johnson: I say this is the canary in the coal
mine. This tells you that something is fundamentally wrong with the way banks
measure, manage and control their risks. They don't have enough equity funding
in their business. They like to have a little bit of equity and a lot of debt.
They get paid based on return on equity, unadjusted for risk. If things go well,
they get the upside. If things go badly, the downside is someone else's
problem. And that someone else is you and me, Bill. It goes to the Federal
Reserve, but not only, it goes to the Treasury, it goes to the debt.

The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the increase in debt relative to GDP due to the
last crisis will end up being 50 percent of GDP, call that $7
trillion dollars, $7.5 trillion dollars in today's money. That's extraordinary.
It's an enormous shock to our fiscal accounts and to our ability to pay
pensions and keep the healthcare system running in the future. For what? What
did we get from that? Absolutely nothing. The bankers got some billions in
extra pay, we get trillions in extra debt. It's unfair, it's inefficient, it's
unconscionable, and it needs to stop.

Moyers: Wasn't part of the risk that Dimon
took with taxpayer guaranteed deposits? I mean, if I had money at JPMorgan
Chase, wouldn't some of my money have been used to take this risk?

Johnson: Again, we don't know the exact
details, but news reports do suggest that yes, they were gambling with federally
insured deposits, which just really puts the icing on the cake here.

Moyers: Do we know yet what is Dimon's
culpability? Is it conceivable to you that a risk this big would have been
incurred without his approval?

Johnson: It seems very strange and quite a
stretch. And he did tell investors, when he reported on first quarter earnings
in April, that he was aware of the situation, aware of the trade -- he called it a "tempest in a teacup,"
and, therefore, not something to worry about.

Moyers: He's been Wall Street's point man in
their campaign against tighter regulation of derivatives and proprietary
trading. Were derivatives at the heart of this gamble?

Johnson: Yes, according to reliable reports,
this was a so-called "hedging" strategy that turned out to be no more
than a gamble, but the people involved perhaps didn't understand that or maybe
they understood it and covered it up. It was absolutely about a bet on
extremely complex derivatives and the interesting question is who failed to
understand exactly what they were getting into. And how did Jamie Dimon, who
has a reputation that he burnishes more than anybody else for being the number
one expert risk manager in the world -- how did he miss this one?

Moyers:I've been reading a lot of stories
today about members of the House, Republicans in particular, saying this
doesn't change their opinion at all that we've got to still diminish regulation.
What do you think about that?

Johnson: I think that it is a recipe for
disaster. Look, deregulating or not regulating during the boom is exactly how
you get into bailouts in the bust. The goal should be to make all the banks
small enough and simple enough to fail. End the government subsidies here. And
when I talk to people on the intellectual right, Bill, they get this, as do
people on the intellectual left. The problem is, the political right largely
doesn't want to go there because of the donations. I'm afraid some people, not
all, but some people on the political left don't want to go there either.

Moyers: The Washington Post reported
that the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into
JPMorgan's trading loss. Have you spotted -- and I know this is sensitive --
but have you spotted anything in the story so far that suggests the possibility
of criminality? Dodd-Frank is not in existence yet, so where would any
possibility of criminality come from?

Johnson: Well Dodd-Frank is in existence but
the rules have not been written and therefore not implemented. So yes, it is
hard to violate those rules in their current state. And many of those rules, by
the way, violation would be a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty. If you
violate a securities law -- if you've mislead investors, if there was material
adverse information that was not disclosed in an appropriate and timely manner
-- that's a very serious offence traditionally.

I have to say that
the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have not
been very good at enforcing securities law in recent years, including and
specifically since the financial crisis. I am skeptical that this will change.
But if they have an investigation that reveals all of the details of what
happened and how it happened, that would be extremely informative and show us,
I believe, that the risk management approach and attitudes on Wall Street are
deeply flawed and leading us towards a big crisis.

Moyers: So what are people to do, Simon? What
can people do now in response to this?

Johnson: Well, I think you have to look for
politicians who are proposing solutions, and look on the right and on the left.
I see Elizabeth Warren, running for the Senate in Massachusetts, who is saying
we should bring back Glass-Steagall to separate commercial banking from
investment banking. I see Tom Hoenig, who is not a politician, he's a
regulator, he's the former president of the Kansas City Fed, and he's now one
of the top two people at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC.
He is saying that big banks should no longer have trading desks. That's the
same sort of idea that Elizabeth Warren is expressing. We need a lot more
people to focus on this and to make this an issue for the elections.

And I would say in
this context, Bill, it's very important not to be distracted. I understand for
example, Speaker Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of
Representatives, is proposing to have another conflict over the debt ceiling in
the near future. This is the politics of distraction. This is refusing to recognize
that a huge part of our fiscal problems today and in the future are due to
these risks within the financial system that are allowed because the people
running the biggest banks hand out massive campaign contributions across the
political spectrum.

Moyers: Are you saying that this financial
crisis, so-called, is at heart a political crisis?

Johnson: Yes, exactly. I think that a few
people, particularly in and around the financial system, have become too
powerful. They were allowed to take a lot of risk, and they did massive damage
to the economy -- more than eight million jobs lost. We're still struggling to
get back anywhere close to employment levels where we were before 2008. And
they've done massive damage to the budget. This damage to the budget is long
lasting; it undermines the budget when we need it to be stronger because the
society is aging. We need to support Social Security and support Medicare on a
fair basis. We need to restore and rebuild revenue, revenue that was absolutely
devastated by the financial crisis. People need to understand the link between
what the banks did and the budget. And too many people fail to do that.
"Oh, it's too complicated. I don't want to understand the details, I don't
want to spend time with it." That's a mistake, a very big mistake. You're
playing into the hands of a few powerful people in the society who want private
benefit and social loss.

Why hasn’t Obama been impeached?
His violations of our borders laws, inducing illegals to vote, sabotage of jobs
for Americans, connections to criminal banksters…. WHAT DOES IT TAKE?

NO WORKS IN THE CORRUPT OBAMA WHITE HOUSE THAT IS NOT
CONNECTED TO THE BANKSTERS THAT OWN OBAMA, OR THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA
RAZA!

THE REASON OBAMA BROUGHT IN DALEY WAS BECAUSE WAS FROM
JPMORGAN, AND AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS.

For much of Obama’s tenure, Jamie Dimon was known as the
White House’s “favorite banker.” According to White House logs, Dimon visited
the White House at least 18 times, often to talk to his former subordinate at
JPMorgan, William Daley, who had been named White House chief of staff by Obama
after the Democratic rout in the 2010 elections.

OBAMA PROMISED HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS NO
PRISON TIME AND NO REAL REGULATION. DID HE DELIVER?

The JPMorgan scandal also throws into
relief the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the 2008
financial meltdown. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and criminality
uncovered by two federal investigations last year, those responsible have been
shielded from prosecution.

Records show that four out of Obama's
top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman
Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup
($358,054).

The
JPMorgan debacle

15
May 2012

The economic and
political fallout from JPMorgan Chase’s sudden announcement last Thursday night
that it lost more than $2 billion from speculative bets on credit derivatives
continued to grow on Monday. The biggest US bank announced the forced
retirement of Ina Drew, who headed up the bank’s London-based Chief Investment
Office, which placed huge bets on the creditworthiness of a collection of US
corporations. Other top executives and traders are expected to be sacked or
demoted.

The bank’s shares
fell another 3.2 percent, bringing its two-day market capitalization loss to
nearly $19 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported that JPMorgan was
prepared for a total loss of more than $4 billion over the next year from its
soured stake in credit default swaps—the same investment vehicle that played a
central role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the government bailout of
insurance giant American International Group (AIG) in September of 2008.

In an interview on
NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sought to
present the loss as an innocent mistake, resulting from “errors, sloppiness and
bad judgment.” Only a month ago, Dimon, who has led the public campaign by Wall
Street against even the mildest restrictions on speculative banking practices,
dismissed warnings over the massive bets being made by his Chief Investment
Office as “a complete tempest in a teapot.”

The scale of the loss
and the denials that preceded it raise the likelihood that banking rules and
laws against investor fraud and deception were breached.

President Obama, however, rushed to the
defense of JPMorgan and Dimon, declaring on a daytime television talk show
Monday that JPMorgan was “one of the best managed banks there is” and Dimon was
“one of the smartest bankers we got.”
At the same time he cited the bank’s loss as a vindication of the Dodd-Frank
financial regulatory bill that he signed into law in July of 2010. “This is why
we passed Wall Street reform,” he said.

In fact, the JPMorgan debacle
demonstrates that nearly four years after the Wall Street crash nothing has changed
for the financial aristocracy. No measures have been taken to rein in the
banks, which received trillions of dollars in government handouts, guarantees
and cheap loans. The same forms of speculation and outright swindling that led
to the financial meltdown and the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression continue unabated.

The big banks, such as JPMorgan, have
increased their stranglehold over the US economy. They have recorded bumper
profits by withholding credit from consumers and small businesses, keeping
unemployment high, while speculating on credit default swaps and other exotic
financial instruments that drain resources from the real economy. On this
basis, bank executives and traders, including those at bailed-out institutions,
have continued to rake in eight-figure compensation packages. Last year, Ina
Drew made $14 million, and Jamie Dimon took in $26 million.

The Dodd-Frank law trumpeted by Obama
is a fraud, an attempt to give the appearance of financial reform while
enabling the banks to continue their parasitic and criminal activities. A case in point is the so-called
Volcker Rule, named after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and
economic adviser to the Obama White House, Paul Volcker.

The rule,
incorporated into the Dodd-Frank Act and supposedly one of its most daring
provisions, ostensibly bars proprietary trading—speculation by a bank on its
own account—by commercial banks whose consumer deposits are guaranteed by the
federal government. The idea is to prevent government-insured banks from
speculating with depositors’ money.

But the regulation as
drafted by federal regulators—under pressure from the Federal Reserve and
Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, as well as the banks—would
actually allow the type of speculative bet made by JPMorgan in the guise of a
“hedge” to offset risk in the bank’s overall investment portfolio.

The Volcker Rule,
whose precise form is yet to be announced, will do nothing to halt speculation
by government-backed banks using small depositors’ money.

The JPMorgan scandal also throws into
relief the government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the 2008
financial meltdown. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and criminality
uncovered by two federal investigations last year, those responsible have been
shielded from prosecution.

When Iowa Senator
Charles Grassley submitted a letter to the Justice Department earlier this year
asking how many bank executives had been prosecuted in response to the
financial crisis, the Justice Department replied it did not know because it was
not keeping a list.

According to a study
by Syracuse University, however, federal financial fraud prosecutions have
fallen to 20-year lows under the Obama administration, and are down 39 percent
since 2003. Under Obama, the number of financial fraud cases has fallen to
one-third the level of the Clinton administration.

These facts
demonstrate the de facto dictatorship exercised by the financial aristocracy
over the entire political system and both major parties. The Obama
administration, in particular, is an instrument of the most powerful financial
institutions. It has focused its efforts on protecting and increasing the
wealth of the privileged elite while utilizing the crisis to permanently slash
the wages and living standards of the working class.

For much of Obama’s tenure, Jamie Dimon
was known as the White House’s “favorite banker.” According to White House
logs, Dimon visited the White House at least 18 times, often to talk to his
former subordinate at JPMorgan, William Daley, who had been named White House
chief of staff by Obama after the Democratic rout in the 2010 elections.

The incestuous and
corrupt relations between Wall Street, the Obama administration and the entire
political system underscore the necessity for the working class to build its
own mass socialist movement to fight for its interests in opposition to the
ruling elite.

The bankers
responsible for the financial crisis, including Dimon and his co-conspirators,
must be held criminally liable for their lawlessness and held accountable for
the social suffering that has resulted from their actions. The ill-gotten
trillions accumulated by the banks must be expropriated, with full protection
for small depositors and small businesses, and used to provide decent jobs,
housing, health care and education for all.

There is no way to
rein in the banks and end their socially destructive activities within the
framework of the capitalist system. The only way to stop the fraud and
parasitism that go on every day on Wall Street is to nationalize the banks and
run them as democratically controlled public utilities.

Andre Damon and Barry
Grey

FACT: JP MORGAN IS ONE OF BANKSTER-BOUGHT OBAMA’S BIGGEST
PAYMASTERS! HE’S PROMISED THEM NO PRISON TIME AND NO REAL REGULATION.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THE BANKSTERS INVESTED HEAVILY IN
OBAMA’S CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION!

Records show that four out of Obama's
top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman
Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup
($358,054).

Obama: JPMorgan Is 'One of the
Best-Managed Banks'

By Mary Bruce | ABC
OTUS News – 2 hrs 31 mins ago

Obama:
JPMorgan Is 'One of the …

Lou
Rocco / ABC News

Just
hours after a top JPMorgan Chase executive retired in the wake of a
stunning $2 billion trading loss, President Obama
told the hosts of ABC's "The View" that the bank's risky bets
exemplified the need for Wall Street reform.

"JPMorgan is one of the best managed banks there
is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of
the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,"
the president said. "We don't know all the details. It's going to be
investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street
reform."

The
full interview airs on "The View"
Tuesday on ABC at 11 a.m. ET

While
a powerhouse like JPMorgan might be able to weather an error that the bank's
own CEO called "egregious," the president questioned what might
happen to smaller institutions in similar situations.

"This
is one of the best managed banks. You could have a bank that isn't as strong,
isn't as profitable managing those same bets and we might have had to step
in," he said. "That's why Wall Street reform is so important."

While
touting his efforts to rein in the Wall Street behavior that led to the massive
taxpayer bailout of the banks following the financial crisis, he noted his
administration is still fighting for tough reform.

Pivoting
to November, the president said Wall Street reform is one of the many critical areas
where he and his Republican challenger, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney,
have a different vision for the future.

The
president's full interview airs Tuesday on "The View." Tune into
"World News with Diane Sawyer" tonight for more.

Nicole GelinasIt’s Not
About Jamie DimonWe should look to markets, not men, to govern the economy.
14 May 2012

On
Meet
the Press
yesterday, JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon epitomized what’s wrong with
America’s approach to the financial crisis. The American media and political
elite remain obsessed with personalities, looking for heroes and villains
instead of focusing on what we really need: the dispassionate rule of law that
would allow free markets to flourish. Meet the Press is for politicians,
and Dimon performed like a model one. He spoke in short sentences and
apologized directly: “I was dead wrong,” he offered, for having made a
“terrible, egregious mistake.” Specifically, last Thursday, JPMorgan announced
a $2
billion trading loss
on a derivatives bet.

Theoretically,
anyway, such a loss should be a matter between the bank and investors, not TV
fodder. Yet Dimon’s business—too-big-to-fail
banking—is
no ordinary business. Washington’s willingness to subsidize failure means that
Dimon’s job is as much political risk management as financial risk management. Because JPMorgan depends on Uncle Sam’s backing, one of
Dimon’s key constituencies is politicians and government regulators. And one way to charm regulators—and
the voters who elect the politicians—is through a killer interview.

In
October 2008, the Bush administration, not normally a fan of government
expropriation, forced
nine big banks,
including Dimon’s, to accept $125 billion in TARP money. The banks were deemed
so important that they had to take the money to protect them against failure,
whether they wanted it or not. Since then, the banks
and the government have stayed bound together. President Obama’s Dodd-Frank
financial reform law, enacted two summers ago, has tied the two sides closer
still.
The problems that led to the financial crisis, remember, included investors’
perception—honed over two decades of smaller-scale bailouts—that big banks were
too big to fail. Dodd-Frank has given such banks an official title:
“systemically important financial institutions.”

Another
problem that led to the financial crisis was that, over the years, politicians
and regulators determined that banks had become so good at risk management that
they no longer needed to abide by consistent rules—fixed limits on borrowing,
for example, so that banks could fail without leaving behind so much unpaid
debt that they endangered the economy. Instead, banks could largely do what
their executives wanted, as long as regulators believed, on a case-by-case
basis, that they knew what they were doing.

In
the aftermath of the JPMorgan mess, politicians and reporters have been
invoking the Dodd-Frank law’s “Volcker Rule.” Named after Paul Volcker, the
Federal Reserve chairman from the Carter and Reagan eras, the rule prohibits
banks whose customers benefit from taxpayer-backed deposit insurance from
engaging in “proprietary trading,” or speculation. But the Volcker Rule isn’t a
rule at all: it prohibits behavior that has no set definition. Twenty-two
months after Dodd-Frank became law, regulators have delayed
enforcing the rule
because they still cannot figure out what proprietary trading really is.
Consider how JPMorgan lost all that money: creating derivatives that let it
sell billions of dollars’ worth of protection against the risk that some
corporate securities would default. That sure doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Banks, because they’re lenders, are already at risk if people and companies
default in droves.

But
does selling such synthetic “insurance” constitute proprietary trading?
Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who helped draft the Volcker Rule language, says
it does. Bank officials have argued that such behavior is hedging, which would
be okay under Dodd-Frank.

Real
rules could govern Wall Street, but politicians must give regulators the
backing to create and enforce them. Rather than worry about the Volcker Rule,
politicians and reporters should be focusing on derivatives rules. One reason
that Washington had to bail out the financial system four years ago was that
financial firms such as AIG had taken on virtually infinite risk through the
derivatives markets. Through derivatives, AIG could “sell” protection against
other companies’ defaults with almost no cash down. Lo and behold, that’s what
JPMorgan Chase was doing, too. Regulators should demand that traders—whether
big banks or tiny hedge funds—put a set amount of cash down behind such bets,
curtailing the amount of potential unpaid debt in the financial system.
Regulators should also require that traders execute such transactions on open
clearinghouses and exchanges—so that markets can determine which bets are going
well and which aren’t, and clearinghouses can demand more money from traders to
cover their losses. Such rules empower market signals, not regulatory micromanagement,
to control risk. If such rules were in place, it’s unlikely Dimon would have
visited the White House 18
times in three years,
as he would have had no way to manipulate a restriction that, after all,
applied to everyone.

The
best way to stop bailouts is to limit borrowing and demand transparency. When
markets know that financial firms have put a cash cushion behind their bets—and
where the risk behind such bets lies—they’re unlikely to pull their money out
of the financial system en masse, necessitating a government rescue. The
Volcker Rule, by contrast, adds no such protection against future taxpayer
rescues; all it does is unleash regulators to debate, in private, the
definitions of risk.

Dodd-Frank
gave regulators the authority to impose real rules on derivatives, and the
regulators have done
so. But
lobbyists demanded and secured exceptions, which could eventually prove the
rule. With such loophole-ridden reform, America has hardly set a good example
for Europe, which lags even further behind in enacting derivatives rules. In
fact, JPMorgan Chase may have executed the derivatives deals from London
because the bank perceived London as a looser environment. Moving this activity
around the world so that financiers can play inconsistent rules against one
another does nothing to help the struggling Western economies.

The
media and the politicians, however, would rather discuss people than arcane
issues like financial rules. Look at how politely—almost obsequiously—NBC’s
David Gregory treated Dimon. Gregory asked Dimon: “Here you are, Jamie Dimon,
you’ve got a sterling reputation. . . . How does a guy like you make this
mistake? If this happened at JPMorgan Chase . . . what about all the other
banks out there? If somebody else made a mistake like this, would we be again
talking about too big to fail and taxpayer bailouts?” Then, when asking
delicate questions about potential criminal liability, Gregory unconsciously
switched from “you” to “the bank.” Lowly regulators will hardly be more willing
to take on Dimon and his colleagues.

Focusing
on one man represents bailout thinking. Policymakers continue to be distracted
from the rules needed to protect the economy from the consequences—including
corporate failure—of the bad decisions that individuals can make. Nearly four
years after the financial crisis began, Washington seems to have learned almost
nothing.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the
Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. She tweets at @nicolegelinas.

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS TAKEN MORE LOOT FROM
CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS THAN OBAMA. HE PROMISED HIS BANKSTERS NO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, AND NO REAL REGULATION.

PROFITS FOR BANKSTERS HAVE SOARED UNDER OBAMA, JUST
AS FORECLOSURES HAVE. DURING HIS FIRST 2 YEARS THE BANKSTERS MADE MORE LOOT
THAN ALL 8 UNDER BUSH!

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

"In general,
these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may
be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate
they hope will win."

Shaping up to be the most corrupt
administration in American history:

Obama’s team:
Not the “best of the Washington insiders,” as the liberal media style
them, but rather, a dysfunctional and dangerous conglomerate of
business-as-usual cronies and hacks

In the first two
weeks alone of his infant administration, Obama had made no fewer than 17
exceptions to his “no-lobbyist” rule

Why the fact
that the massive infusion of union dues into his campaign treasury didn’t
trouble him in the least reveals Obama’s credibility as a reformer

The lack of
unprecedented pace of withdrawals and botched appointments -- and how
getting through the confirmation process was no guarantee of ethical
cleanliness or competence, even as Obama’s cheerleaders were glorifying
the Greatest Transition in World History

Inconsistency:
How Obama, erstwhile critic of the campaign finance practice known as
“bundling,” happily accepted more than $350,000 in bundled contributions
from billionaire hedge-fund managers

How Obama broke
his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law --
helping make hostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s
cabinet

Joe Biden: It’s
not just that he lies, it’s that he lies so well that you think he really
believes the stuff he makes up

Treasury
Secretary Geithner: His ineptness and epic blundering -- including how he
nearly caused the collapse of the dollar in international trade with a
single remark

The appalling
story of Technology Czar Vivek Kundra, the convicted shoplifter in charge
of the entire federal government’s information security infrastructure

Obama’s “Porker
of the Month” Transportation Secretary, Roy LaHood: An earmark-addicted
influence peddler born and raised on the politics of pay-to-play

SEIU:
Responsible for installing a cabal of hand-chosen officers who exploited
their cash-infused fiefdoms for personal gain and presided over rigged
elections -- in the process, becoming all that they had professed to stand
against as representatives of the downtrodden worker

How Obama lied
on his “Fight the Smears” campaign website when he claimed that he “never
organized with ACORN”

ACORN: How the
profound threat the group poses is not merely ideological or economic --
it’s electoral

ACORN’s own
internal review of shady money transfers among its web of affiliates: How
it underscores concerns that conservatives have long raised about the
organization

Liar, liar,
pantsuit on fire: How Hillary Clinton has already trampled upon her
promise not to let her husband’s financial dealings sway her decisions as
Secretary of State

How even a few
principled progressives are finally beginning to question the cult of
Obama -- even as Obama sycophants in the mainstream media continue to
celebrate his “hipness” and “swagga”

GET THIS BOOK!

Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P
CARNEY

Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making
You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman
Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack
Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from
Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and
consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs
up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you
wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism
to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate
welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Congressman
Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.”
And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics
is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the
Obama years.”

If
you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows
up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit
exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam.
Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger,
somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book
names the names—and it will make your blood boil.

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman
Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack
Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from
Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and
consumers.

Investigative
reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and
the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is
delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling
corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s
Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The
Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell
corporate profits and more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled
bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs
presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the
well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists'

* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If
you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government
swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts
deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs,
this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils
down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and
those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will
make your blood boil.

*Praise for Obamanomics

“The
notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of
progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by
day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative
muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big
business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs,
taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama
years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every
time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute
observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama
administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s
populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone
who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every
libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large
corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to
read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions
of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s
understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But
as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more
sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing
everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual,
which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The
Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History

*

·Hardcover: 256 pages

·Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30,
2009)

·Language: English

·ISBN-10: 1596986123

·ISBN-13: 978-1596986121

ARE AMAZED AT HOW UTTERLY BRAZEN THESE CORPORATE OWNED
POLITICIANS ARE?

GET THIS BOOK!

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats,
Crooks, andCronies

by Michelle Malkin

Editorial Reviews

In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records
of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and
abuses of power throughout his administration.

From the Inside Flap

The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six
months in office to kill it.

Never has an administration taken office with more inflated
expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American
Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative
tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a
powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption
that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty
crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of
Corruption, Malkin reveals:

* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and
Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing
the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their
relatives have benefited mightily

* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's
cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide

* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry,
unaccountable "czars" than any other administration

* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments
became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be
appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons

* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered
millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand
their power

* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists
are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption,
Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the
liberal media would rather keep hidden.